Re: [tsvwg] Error in RFC 9260 regarding fragmentation
Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Thu, 08 February 2024 12:07 UTC
Return-Path: <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09DF8C14F697 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:07:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KBI5Pc9hB9P1 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:07:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34CCEC14F5E4 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:2072:73a6:414c:844e]) (Authenticated sender: lurchi) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EEC4721E2806; Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:07:27 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.400.31\))
From: Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <CA+GRsggff7F1bzYMDuXX_sqivL1_Ok+7YUW728RccFnKN1o1Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2024 13:07:26 +0100
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F93CFC43-0757-45A4-9E70-6F7CC91D165D@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <CA+GRsggff7F1bzYMDuXX_sqivL1_Ok+7YUW728RccFnKN1o1Ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sukun Tarachandani <sukunrt@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.400.31)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/qWlvU9LuOwfoiumOmr6SceIWhMg>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Error in RFC 9260 regarding fragmentation
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2024 12:07:36 -0000
> On Feb 8, 2024, at 12:17, Sukun Tarachandani <sukunrt@gmail.com> wrote: > > In the RFC section Fragmentation and Reassembly, the last point for fragmentation of message in to data chunks reads: > > 3) The transmitter MUST also set the B/E bits of the first DATA chunk in the series to 10, the B/E bits of the last DATA chunk in the series to 01, and the B/E bits of all other DATA chunks in the series to 00. > This is confusing for small messages that take only a single chunk. I believe it should read something like > > 3) The transmitter MUST set the B bit of the first DATA chunk in the series to 1 and the B bit of all other DATA chunks in the series to 0. The transmitter MUST set the E bit of the last DATA chunk in the series to 1 and the E bit of all other DATA chunks in the series to 0. The list, from which you are citing the third entry, describes fragmentation, as it starts with "Fragmentation takes the following steps". So it does not describe the sending of un-fragmented messages. This is described by the first sentence of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9260#section-3.3.1-4 and the last row of the table https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9260#table-4. Have you observed any problems with implementations? Best regards Michael > > -- > Sukun
- [tsvwg] Error in RFC 9260 regarding fragmentation Sukun Tarachandani
- Re: [tsvwg] Error in RFC 9260 regarding fragmenta… Michael Tuexen